Opinion of the Court.

legal title, whatever Brott's equitable rights might be; and that while the certification might be voidable, it was not absolutely void. The act of August 3, 1854, provided that where lands had been or should be thereafter granted to the several States or Territories, and the law did not convey the fee simple title of such lands or require patents to be issued therefor, the lists of such lands which had been, or might thereafter be certified, "shall be regarded as conveying the fee simple of all the lands embraced in such lists that are of the character contemplated by such act of Congress, and intended to be granted thereby; but where lands embraced in such lists are not of the character embraced by such acts of Congress, and are not intended to be granted thereby, said lists, so far as these lands are concerned, shall be perfectly null and void, and no right, title, claim, or interest shall be conveyed thereby."

As we have seen, this particular land was not included in the grant, and the Secretary of the Interior had so decided on August 30, 1861, when he determined that the preëmption right had attached. And since it was not so included nor subject to disposition as part of the public domain, on October 25, 1864, the action of the land department in including it within the lists certified on that day was ineffectual. Noble v. Railroad Co., 147 U. S. 165, 174.

The distinctions between void and voidable acts need not be discussed. It is rarely that things are wholly void and without force and effect as to all persons and for all purposes, and incapable of being made otherwise. Things are voidable. which are valid and effectual until they are avoided by some act; while things are often said to be void which are without validity until confirmed. 8 Bac. Abr. Void and Voidable; Ewell v. Daggs, 108 U. S. 143; Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall. 163; State v. Richmond, 6 Foster (N. H.) 232; Anderson v. Roberts, 18 Johns. 515; Pearsoll v. Chapin, 44 Penn. St. 9. As against Brott the certification had no operative effect. It is also objected that Brott was not a qualified claimant under the act of 1855, because that act only applied to a contractor engaged in carrying the mail through any of the Terri

Counsel for Parties.

tories west of the Mississippi, and because it does not appear that his declaratory statement was ever accepted or recognized, or that he made proof of his occupation of the land as a mail station, but these and other like objections involve questions between Brott and the government, already determined in his favor, and which the railroad company and its grantees are not in a position to raise upon this record. Judgment affirmed.

UNITED STATES v. AMERICAN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST

CIRCUIT.

No. 745. Submitted October 28, 1895. Decided November 11, 1895.

This court has appellate jurisdiction over a judgment rendered by a Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States in a suit brought by the United States in the Circuit Court of the Circuit, to cancel a patent for an invention.

Where the appellate jurisdiction of this court is described in a statute in general terms so as to comprehend the particular case, no presumption can be indulged of an intention to oust or to restrict such jurisdiction; and any subsequent statute claimed to have that effect must be examined in the light of the objects of the enactment, the purposes it is to serve and the mischiefs it is to remedy, bearing in mind the rule that the operation of such a statute must be restrained within narrower limits than its words import, if the court is satisfied that the literal meaning of its language would extend to cases which the legislature never intended to include in it.

MOTION to dismiss for want of jurisdiction. The case is stated in the opinion.

Mr. James J. Storrow and Mr. Frederick P. Fish for the motion.

Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Causten Browne, and Mr. Robert S. Taylor opposing.

Opinion of the Court.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER delivered the opinion of the

court.

This is a suit by the United States to cancel a patent for an invention granted to the American Bell Telephone Company, as assignee of the inventor, Emile Berliner. On a hearing in the Circuit Court there was a finding and decree for the complainant. 65 Fed. Rep. 86. The cause having been taken to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, the decree of the Circuit Court was reversed, and it was ordered that the bill be dismissed. 68 Fed. Rep. 542. From this decree an appeal was taken by the United States to this court, which appellees now move to dismiss " for want of jurisdiction in this court to entertain it under the Circuit Court of Appeals act of March 3, 1891, c. 517, § 6, 26 Stat. 826, 828, for the reason that the case is a case arising under the patent laws."

The Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction, under the Constitution, in all cases to which the judicial power extends, (other than those in respect of which it has original jurisdiction,) "with such exceptions and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." It was early held that in the passage of the judiciary act of 1789, Congress was executing the power of making exceptions to the exercise of appellate jurisdiction, and that the affirmative description of the cases to which the appellate power extended was to be understood as implying a negative on the exercise of such appellate power as was not comprehended within it, but that as this restriction rested on implication founded on the manifest intent of the legislature, it could be sustained only when that manifest intent appeared. Durousseau v. United States, 6 Cranch, 307.

Where the appellate jurisdiction is described in general terms so as to comprehend the particular case, no presumption can be indulged of an intention to oust or to restrict such jurisdiction; and any statute claimed to have that effect must be examined in the light of the objects of the enactment, the purposes it is to serve and the mischiefs it is to remedy, bearing in mind the rule that the operation of such a statute must be restrained within narrower limits than its words

Opinion of the Court.

import, if the court is satisfied that the literal meaning of its language would extend to cases which the legislature never intended to include in it. Petri v. Commercial National Bank of Chicago, 142 U. S. 644, 650; Brewer's Lessee v. Blougher, 14 Pet. 178; Reiche v. Smythe, 13 Wall. 162, 164; Market Company v. Hoffman, 101 U. S. 112.

We inquire then whether the appellate jurisdiction of this court over controversies to which the United States are parties has been circumscribed by Congress in respect to the right of appeal.

By section 629 of the Revised Statutes, original jurisdiction was conferred upon the Circuit Courts (with a limitation as to the value of the matter in dispute) of all suits in equity and all suits at common law where the United States are petitioners or plaintiffs; all suits at law or in equity, arising under any act providing for revenue from imports or tonnage; all causes arising under any law providing internal revenue; all causes arising under the postal laws; and all suits at law or in equity arising under the patent or copyright laws of the United States. By the fifth paragraph of section 711, the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States of all cases" arising under the patent right or copyright laws of the United States" was declared to be exclusive.

By the act of March 3, 1875, c. 137, 18 Stat. 470, it was provided: "The Circuit Courts of the United States shall have original cognizance, concurrent with the courts of the several States, of all suits of a civil nature at common law or in equity, where the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of costs, the sum or value of five hundred dollars, and arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States, or treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority, or in which the United States are plaintiffs or petitioners;" and this was repeated in substance, the differences being immaterial here, in the acts of March 3, 1887, c. 373, 24 Stat. 552, and August 13, 1888, c. 866, 25 Stat. 433.

And this court had appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments and decrees of any Circuit Court, or of any District Court acting as a Circuit Court, in civil actions.

Opinion of the Court.

where the matter in dispute exceeded the sum or value of five thousand dollars. Rev. Stat. §§ 690, 691, 692; 18 Stat. 315.

The primary object of the act of March 3, 1891, c. 517, as stated in American Construction Company v. Jacksonville Railway Company, 148 U. S. 372, 382, "well known as a matter of public history, manifest on the face of the act, and judicially declared in the leading cases under it, was to relieve this court of the over burden of cases and controversies, arising from the rapid growth of the country, and the steady increase of litigation; and, for the accomplishment of this object, to transfer a large part of its appellate jurisdiction to the Circuit Courts of Appeals thereby established in each judicial circuit, and to distribute between this court and those, according to the scheme of the act, the entire appellate jurisdiction from the Circuit and District Courts of the United States."

By section five of this act, appeals or writs of error may be taken from the 'Circuit Court directly to this court in six specified classes of cases: where the jurisdiction of the court below is in issue; in prize causes; in cases of convictions of capital or otherwise infamous crimes; in cases involving the construction or application of the Constitution of the United States; in cases in which the constitutionality of any law of the United States, or the validity or construction of any treaty made under its authority, is drawn in question; in cases where the constitution or law of a State is claimed to be in contravention of the Constitution of the United States. Cases in which the United States are plaintiffs or petitioners are not enumerated as falling within either of these classes, nor are cases involving merely the construction of a law of the United States, those ordinarily arising under the heads of jurisdiction in respect of subjects-matter treated of in the sixth section.

By the sixth section, it is provided that the Circuit Courts of Appeals shall have appellate jurisdiction "in all cases other than those provided for in the preceding section of this act, unless otherwise provided by law." The Courts of Appeals, therefore, have appellate jurisdiction of all cases in which